If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It seems to me that everyone is going to systemd because they don't wanna to maintain their own init stuff. Makes sense.

However, this push is going through while systemd is far from perfect, arguably worse than system v init style.

It's bad enough that people are willing to support their own forks.

In a more or less funny way, it's actually similar to pulseaudio. Me too, I liked the pulseaudio features and decided to close my eyes on the inherent design issues. Few years later, I'm using pure alsa, because pulseaudio design issues and complexity just annoy the hell out of me.

Systemd has design issues. The log handling. The abstraction of all the things. Binaryzation of all the things. This is far from KISS.

Comment

At first, I was reluctant to adopt SystemD. After all, if SysInit isn't broken, why fix it?

Well, after much research, I started to change my mind. It seems, SystemD offers numerous advantages. So while, SysInit isn't broken, moving to SystemD will help speed up the boot process, allow for easier maintenance/sandboxing, and reduce dependencies (in addition to a whole host of other advantages it brings). So why not? If it makes Linux better, easier to use and more maintainable, then I'm all for it.

Comment

I wouldn't say classic init scripts are kiss either... they just look like it. But actually, parsing these startscripts is a lot of (unnecessary) work done hidden from the user, while only offering little.

Comment

I do understand why people may dislike the idea of systemd inclusion, Lennart Poettering has shown time and again that what he thinks is right is the only way to go and you can go f*ck yourself if you want to use your computer differently (for instance doing things the old SysVinit way).

The Open Source movement is a major f*ck up - there are a lot less people working on Linux yet people cannot even come to an agreement and work for the same purpose of making a better system.

Comment

I do understand why people may dislike the idea of systemd inclusion, Lennart Poettering has shown time and again that what he thinks is right is the only way to go and you can go f*ck yourself if you want to use your computer differently (for instance doing things the old SysVinit way).

The Open Source movement is a major f*ck up - there are a lot less people working on Linux yet people cannot even come to an agreement and work for the same purpose of making a better system.

Those two feature requests you linked two would probably affect less than 0.1% of the Linux population. I suppose you have two choices:

1. Stick with SysVinit.
2. Add those features yourself to SystemD

You can't really fault Lennart Poettering for not adding a feature that would only benefit a very very small portion of the users.

Comment

And BTW, systemd itself can leave your system unbootable (!!) - go ask Fedora 18 testers - they will surely demonstrate to you their anger.

A technical reason why systemd sucks big time?

Try to boot your system the old init = /bin/bash way, you won't be able to do anything with it, as udev was replaced with systemd and systemd cannot run when it's not a system init process.

That's called broken by design.

Sorry, but I have to say, f*ck Lennart Poettering and f*ck systemd. systemd has become a single point of failure, a Swiss army knife which once getting broken renders your system completely unusable. That's f*cking wrong. That reeks of bad incompetent design decisions.